Who Pays fine

DaveF327

TheBogsDollocks wrote: »

It is the vehicle owner that is liable for any bus lane penalty charge. see 4(1) for within London


http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=local+london+authorities+act+1996&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1515043&ActiveTextDocId=1515051&filesize=3137

and 5(1) for outside London

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Bus+Lane+Contraventions+(Penalty+Charges%2c+Adjudication+and+Enforcement)+(England)+Regulations+2005%2c+(%22The+Regulations%22)+&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2028140&ActiveTextDocId=2028162&filesize=5638

It is possible that you signed a contract with the driving instructor making you liable but it would need to be quite specific.

Very interesting reading.

Given that instructors "hire out" the their car to their pupils for driving tests, I hope that they will learn from this and draw up official written "hire agreements" that comply with the Owner Liability Regulations. This should protect their livelihoods from errant candidates, especially those who don't give a damn like the OP. Most decent folk would just agree to recompense the car owner.

AlexisV

DaveF327 wrote: »

The supervising driver is guilty of aiding and abetting any offence that the driver commits. Yes, the mobile phone one is a special one under statute law, but once the driver is convicted of any other like speeding, running a red light etc, the instructor can be charged with aiding and abetting the same by virtue of neglecting to prevent the offence taking place.

An examiner on test, however, not only has crown immunity in this regard, but is not regarded as supervising a learner under the Motor Vehicle (Driving Licences) Regulations. The only occasion a provisional licence holder can drive unsupervised is when undergoing a test.

It's not as simple as that. If the pupil commits an offence, the instructor will receive the NIP and have to name the driver. The pupil can please guilty and pay, or plead not guilty and attempt to use being under instruction as a defence.

Aiding and abetting is a separate issue down to the police and the police are very unlikely to pursue it anyway, and then usually only for a more major offence.

Meanwhile back in court, the pupil would have a hard time pleading not guilty:

ettleship v Weston [1971] CA
In the criminal law it is no defence for a driver to say: "I was a learner-driver under instruction. I was doing my best and could not help it." Such a plea may go to mitigation of sentence, but it does not go in exculpation of guilt. The criminal law insists that every person driving a car must attain an objective standard measured by the standard of a skilled, experienced and careful driver. That is shown by McCrone v. Riding [1938] 1 All ER 137, where a learner-driver "was exercising all the skill and attention to be expected from a person with his short experience", but he knocked down a pedestrian. He was charged with driving "without due care and attention" contrary to section 12 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930; now section 3(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. The Magistrates acquitted him, but the Divisional Court directed them to convict. Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice, said that:

"the standard is an objective standard, impersonal and universal, fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway. It is in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver."

Again in Regina v. Evans [1963] 1 Q.B. 412, an experienced driver was overtaking another car at the dip in the road. He crashed head-on into an oncoming car and the driver of it was killed. He was charged with causing death by driving in a manner dangerous to the public, contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. Mr. Justice Salmon, as he then was, directed the jury that "even though the dangerous driving was caused by slight negligence, the slightest negligence on his part, he is guilty." The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the conviction, and said:

"If a driver in fact adopts a manner of driving which the jury think was dangerous to other road-users in all the circumstances, then, on the issue of guilt, it matters not whether he was deliberately reckless, careless, momentarily inattentive, or even doing his incompetent best. Such considerations are highly relevant if it ever comes to sentence."

and

R v PRESTON JUSTICES, EX PARTE LYONS (1982) DC
CRIMINAL LAW
CARELESS & INCONSIDERATE DRIVING : DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE ETC. - EMERGENCY AS A DEFENCE
L-Driver making emergency stop
Appellant,a learner driver having his last lesson before his test,was told to make an emergency stop.He did so without looking behind,was struck by a by a motor cycle from the rear & later convicted of driving without due care & attention contrary to s.3 RTA 1972. HELD: That the degree of care expected of A was that which a reasonable & prudent driver would exercise in the same circumstances. Regardless of directions from his instructor he should have made certain that it was safe to execute the manoeuvre. Appeal dismissed. McCrone v Riding (193 1 All ER 157 & Simpson v Peat (1952) 2 QB 27 referred to.

The law makes no distinction between a driver under a provisional licence and one with a full licence.


Meanwhile, regarding parking contraventions such as the subject of this thread, the keeper is liable and the pupil can walk away. Civil law will not help unless there is a well worded contract between the two.

darkblue_2

Very interesting indeed. The case law points to negligence, even only slightly, as being guilty.

Surely the OP, along with the majority of the population (even those who do not drive), know that using the bus lane is not permitted. It therefore stands to chance that if it came before a court, they would find the OP guilty.

david39

OP does not make it clear how the fine came back to her driving instructor. Who issued the penalty notice?

Examiners do not issue Fixed Penalty Notices and I doubt that they report any infringements of their drivers. If the car had been stopped by police at the time, then an FPN would have been issued on the spot to the driver. This suggests, then, that the error was picked up on camera and an FPN then sent to the car owner.

If that is the case, the car-owner automatically has the right to state who the driver was at the time and return the penalty notice. It then gets re-issued and sent to the driver. This facility is clearly stated on the FPN, would be well known to a driving instructor and would resolve the immediate problem from his point of view - a priority for him, I would think, considering he was nowhere near the scene of the crime.

Why has the driving instructor not gone down that road (excuse the pun!) I suspect that there are elements of this story that the OP has omitted to tell us.

Coupon-mad

It's not a Fixed Penalty, IMHO it will be a Council-issued bus lane PCN, sent out by post.

The car owner is ultimately responsible for it - but the OP 'should' pay/appeal it IMHO.

Why not post about this on pepipoo with a pic of all pages of the PCN (if the OP has a copy of it), and pics of the signs & lines of the bus lane? Maybe no-one will have to pay it if there are technical flaws to appeal on (more common than people realise):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

HTH

DaveF327

AlexisV wrote: »

If the pupil commits an offence, the instructor will receive the NIP and have to name the driver.

In the case of tripping speed / traffic light cameras, yes, but this is a bus lane contravention which under different legislation - see TheBogsDollocks' post for links - holds the owner accountable for these penalties without recourse to the identity of any driver. It's highly likely the notice was issued by a CCTV watcher.

regarding parking contraventions such as the subject of this thread,

It's actually a moving bus lane contravention.

Civil law will not help unless there is a well worded contract between the two.

That's the instructor's only hope. Like I said, Driving instructors should be made aware of this incident and draw up written enforceable agreements to cover things like this. They lose enough money through pupils' apathetic actions as it is.

Whatdoiknow

Appellant,a learner driver having his last lesson before his test,was told to make an emergency stop.He did so without looking behind,was struck by a by a motor cycle from the rear & later convicted of driving without due care & attention contrary to s.3 RTA 1972. HELD: That the degree of care expected of A was that which a reasonable & prudent driver would exercise in the same circumstances. Regardless of directions from his instructor he should have made certain that it was safe to execute the manoeuvre. Appeal dismissed. McCrone v Riding (193 1 All ER 157 & Simpson v Peat (1952) 2 QB 27 referred to.

Interesting, so someone steps out in front of me whilst driving a car and I should take time out to look behind me before I attempt an emergency stop.

I always thought that following drivers should keep enough distance from the car in front not to crash into the back of them.

KKeller_2

DaveF327 wrote: »

Very interesting reading.

Given that instructors "hire out" the their car to their pupils for driving tests, I hope that they will learn from this and draw up official written "hire agreements" that comply with the Owner Liability Regulations. This should protect their livelihoods from errant candidates, especially those who don't give a damn like the OP. Most decent folk would just agree to recompense the car owner.

Who are you to say that I don't give a damn? All I merely asked was who was obliged to pay the fine, so don't jump to conclusions when you in fact don't have all the information at your disposal to come up with a statement like that.

Yes, the morally right thing to do is pay the fine, which is exactly what I did. Like I said before, all i was doing was finding out who the burden falls on.

AlexisV

In the case of tripping speed / traffic light cameras, yes, but this is a bus lane contravention which under different legislation - see TheBogsDollocks' post for links - holds the owner accountable for these penalties without recourse to the identity of any driver. It's highly likely the notice was issued by a CCTV watcher.

Yep, you're quite right. My point above was about traffic offences, as a side point.

The keeper or owner is liable for a contravention.

AlexisV

Whatdoiknow wrote: »

Appellant,a learner driver having his last lesson before his test,was told to make an emergency stop.He did so without looking behind,was struck by a by a motor cycle from the rear & later convicted of driving without due care & attention contrary to s.3 RTA 1972. HELD: That the degree of care expected of A was that which a reasonable & prudent driver would exercise in the same circumstances. Regardless of directions from his instructor he should have made certain that it was safe to execute the manoeuvre. Appeal dismissed. McCrone v Riding (193 1 All ER 157 & Simpson v Peat (1952) 2 QB 27 referred to.

Interesting, so someone steps out in front of me whilst driving a car and I should take time out to look behind me before I attempt an emergency stop.

I always thought that following drivers should keep enough distance from the car in front not to crash into the back of them.

No, the issue is who is guilty of driving without due care. A planned 'emergency' stop needs consideration. An unplanned genuine emergency stop would absolve you.

In the latter case, if the person was too close behind they may the ones charged with out driving without due care.